Never miss a post! Enter your email address below to subscribe today.

Monday, March 31, 2014

[UPDATED 3/7/15: The Foreign Cultural Exchange Immunity Clarification Act (H.R. 889) has been introduced again in 2015, during the 114th session of Congress.]First adopted by the U.S. House of
Representative in2012and then left to die in the
Senate, the Foreign Cultural Exchange Immunity Clarification Act (FCEICA) is
back, having been reintroduced by the three original sponsors along with a new
co-sponsor.

CHL supported the bill the last time it made its way to Capitol Hill and recommended modifications that would help to bolster the State Department's review of IFSA requests. CHL once again supports the legislation.

Judiciary Committee
member Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH)introducedH.R.
4292on March 25 along with
co-sponsors Rep. John Conyers (D-MI),
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), and Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TX). Their purpose is
to amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) in order to encourage foreign lending of art to the U.S.

The
bill proposes that artwork of cultural significance imported for
purposes of temporary exhibition by a cultural institution, and which is in the national
interest, will not be considered "commercial activity." That is
important because federal law generally protects foreign states from
lawsuits except in situations involving "commercial activity."

The concept of "commercial activity" was expanded by the courts in the 2005 case of Malewicz v. City of Amsterdam. That case involved the heirs of
Kazimir Malevich who sued Amsterdam in Washington, DC to either
recover the artworks that the city’s Stedelijk Museum loaned to American museums or, in the alternative, to receive $150 million in damages. The heirs claimed that
the foreign museum unlawfully obtained the paintings.The City of Amsterdam, meanwhile, argued that the Immunity from Seizure Act (IFSA)--not to be confused with the FSIA--protected it from the lawsuit.IFSA, formally called the Immunity from Seizure Under
Judicial Process of Cultural Objects Imported for Temporary Exhibition or
Display (22 USC § 2459), protects foreign artwork on temporary loan in America from
judicial seizure. It does so by preventing a civil litigant in a U.S. court from claiming the art itself to satisfy a
judgment in a lawsuit, for example.

The Malewicz court ruled that Amsterdam had engaged in
“commercial activity” under the FSIA. So while
IFSA may have protected the actual artwork from seizure, the FSIA did not protect the
City of Amsterdam from a damages award, said the court. The FCEICA would correct this contradictory result.

The latest version reintroduces the so-called "Nazi exception," which the bill now words in this fashion:

Nazi-era claims.--[Jurisdictional immunity] shall not apply in any case ... in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue ... and the action is based upon a claim that such work was taken in connection with the acts of a covered government during the covered period [of January 30, 1933 through May 8, 1945].

Covered governments are defined as Germany, its allies, Germany's military occupied territories, and cooperating regimes during the period of the Second World War.The bill has been
referred to the Judiciary Committee.UPDATE 4/3/13The full committee of the Judiciary quickly held a markup of the legislation, without a hearing, and yesterday approved the bill by voice vote. The measure will now be sent to the full House for consideration.The Judiciary Committee declared, "By making a minor change to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, this legislation strengthens the ability of U.S. museums and schools to borrow foreign government-owned artwork and cultural artifacts."A bipartisan statement issued by the bill's Republican and Democratic sponsors announced:

The United States has long recognized the importance of a cultural exchange of ideas through artwork loaned from other countries. We are proud to support this strongly bipartisan legislation that increases Americans’ access to beautiful artwork and artifacts from around the world, fosters knowledge and appreciation of the arts and other cultures, and encourages learning, history and creativity.

UPDATE 5/9/14
The full House passed the bill on May 6 by a vote of 388 to 4. The bill was sent to the Senate and referred to the Judiciary Committee on May 7.Photo credit: Micahel Slonecker

Monday, March 24, 2014

A grand
jury indictment handed up this monthcharges a Utah man with taking and
destroying a three-toed dinosaur track near the Hell’s Revenge Trail
at the Sand Flats Recreation Area. The area forms part of the the 258 million acres of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah initiated the case of U.S. v. Jared
Ehlers less than 30 days after the defendant allegedly removed, stole,
and discarded the dinosaur fossil on or around February 17. Authorities believe that the dinosaur footprint was thrown into a river.

An indictment begins the criminal court process. It is not a finding of guilt.
A defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.

All together, the possible penalties include a prison term of 45 years, with
the longest incarceration potentially coming from the destruction of evidence
charge. Ehlers likely would not receive the maximum sentences were he to be
convicted.

The case may be among the first of its kind--if not the first case--prosecuted
under PRPA.* That statute, signed into law on March 30, 2009, is an outgrowth of a Department of Interior report
published in 2000 titled Assessment
of Fossil Management on Federal and Indian Lands. The report recommended that

[f]uture
actions should penalize the theft of fossils from federal lands in a
way that maximizes the effectiveness of prosecutions and deters future
thefts. Penalties should take into account, among other factors, the value
of fossils themselves, as well as any damage resulting from their illegal
collection.

Federal
prosecutors have moved quickly in the Ehlers case, buoyed by federal, state, and
county cooperation. The
Grand County Sheriff's Office earlierreportedthat the agency was working with
the Utah Department of Safety and BLM to find the fossil track possibly beneath the waters of the Colorado River.

Cultural
property prosecutions remain infrequent and require continuing public and
judicial support. So it is wise in this case that prosecutors chose to have the defendant
summoned to court rather than arrested. The decision contrasts with theFBI
and BLM raids in 2009 that ignited a long-running feud between citizens, collectors, dealers, and law enforcement authorities in the American Southwest.

*UPDATE July 9, 2014: Further research suggests that U.S. v. Ehlers may be the first direct, non-conspiracy conviction under PRPA. See the blog post describing the guilty plea entered in this case here.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Switzerland in 2012 was the #1 source of archaeological, historical, and ethnological material imported into the United States. But U.S. import values from that country fell by 99.8%, leaving the former second place finisher, the United Kingdom, to take the top spot in 2013 as measured by declared customs values of consumable goods.Data compiled from tariff and trade information supplied by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission reveal this latest picture of imports classified by Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) commodity code 9705.00.0070.The overall total customs value of archaeological, historical, or ethnological goods imported into the U.S. in 2013 amounted to a declared value of $45,647,923, an increase of 22% from 2012. Imports received from the U.K. jumped nearly 54%, totaling $11,451,019. And the U.K. and Egypt together made up nearly half of the $45 million of American imports.

Import values from Egypt skyrocketed 105% at a time of political instability and upheaval. There is a Red List covering cultural heritage from that nation.

Photo credit: Athewma

Israel, which has a legally regulated antiquities market, saw its U.S. import values climb 97%.India, a source of highly prized artifacts among American collectors, saw a jump of 3805% in its U.S. import values.Mali, once on the top 20 list of source countries, experienced a 79% collapse in 2013 after the White House, in September 2012, extended import restrictions on endangered Malian cultural heritage. Conakry Terminal on the port city of neighboring Guinea, meanwhile, continues to grow. And in 2013, American archaeological, historical, or ethnological imports from Guinea totaled $347,100, up from $0 the previous year.Imports from war-torn Syria spiked 1375%. A Red List for threatened cultural heritage is in effect.
The top 20 source countries in 2013 by customs value for archaeological, historical, or ethnological goods were, in descending order, U.K., Egypt, Italy, Democratic Republic of Congo, Germany, Greece, France, Israel, Australia, India, Gabon, Congo, Argentina, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Canada, Guinea, Lebanon, and Spain.The full list of HTS 9705.00.0070 data is reproduced in the table below. More 2012 data is found here.

HTS Number

Country

2012

2013

Percent Change2012 - 2013

In Actual Dollars

9705000070

United Kingdom

7,446,021

11,451,019

53.8%

9705000070

Egypt

5,186,166

10,655,752

105.5%

9705000070

Italy

4,189,800

3,972,732

-5.2%

9705000070

Congo (DROC)

0

3,465,671

N/A

9705000070

Germany

1,826,463

2,052,398

12.4%

9705000070

Greece

928,254

1,801,489

94.1%

9705000070

France

1,694,952

1,250,293

-26.2%

9705000070

Israel

598,212

1,178,980

97.1%

9705000070

Australia

100,768

1,080,405

972.2%

9705000070

India

26,958

1,052,933

3,805.8%

9705000070

Gabon

0

941,213

N/A

9705000070

Congo (ROC)

519,087

906,600

74.7%

9705000070

Argentina

0

759,100

N/A

9705000070

Denmark

31,771

725,025

2,182.0%

9705000070

Norway

0

513,717

N/A

9705000070

Japan

14,909

401,146

2,590.6%

9705000070

Canada

268,177

385,249

43.7%

9705000070

Guinea

0

347,100

N/A

9705000070

Lebanon

6,546

300,000

4,483.0%

9705000070

Spain

3,494,617

242,406

-93.1%

9705000070

Morocco

182,020

219,148

20.4%

9705000070

Austria

119,628

176,227

47.3%

9705000070

Madagascar

16,360

169,900

938.5%

9705000070

Turkey

399,462

147,669

-63.0%

9705000070

Indonesia

14,631

136,714

834.4%

9705000070

Papua New Guin

46,648

135,924

191.4%

9705000070

Costa Rica

0

135,867

N/A

9705000070

Russia

32,599

134,972

314.0%

9705000070

Finland

0

120,101

N/A

9705000070

Syria

6,870

101,349

1,375.2%

9705000070

Netherlands

30,632

78,996

157.9%

9705000070

Sweden

81,865

77,937

-4.8%

9705000070

Nigeria

7,500

73,203

876.0%

9705000070

Mali

254,207

53,128

-79.1%

9705000070

China

59,219

42,288

-28.6%

9705000070

Ghana

20,080

36,463

81.6%

9705000070

Uruguay

0

33,539

N/A

9705000070

Burkina Faso

0

33,205

N/A

9705000070

Bulgaria

18,000

31,379

74.3%

9705000070

Belgium

21,686

25,036

15.4%

9705000070

South Africa

54,816

23,764

-56.6%

9705000070

Ireland

32,363

22,790

-29.6%

9705000070

Ukraine

170,670

21,257

-87.5%

9705000070

Switzerland

8,710,037

20,870

-99.8%

9705000070

Taiwan

0

20,000

N/A

9705000070

Saudi Arabia

0

19,540

N/A

9705000070

Poland

21,379

11,575

-45.9%

9705000070

Solomon Is

0

11,500

N/A

9705000070

Brazil

3,000

10,000

233.3%

9705000070

Uzbekistan

3,000

8,793

193.1%

9705000070

Jordan

4,600

8,000

73.9%

9705000070

Colombia

0

6,127

N/A

9705000070

Romania

5,500

5,500

0.0%

9705000070

Togo

0

4,730

N/A

9705000070

Iceland

0

3,704

N/A

9705000070

Chile

3,500

3,500

0.0%

9705000070

Thailand

10,221

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Mauritania

7,425

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Albania

2,070

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Korea

202,730

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Serbia

2,575

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Algeria

13,152

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Singapore

49,200

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Malaysia

7,794

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Macedonia

42,800

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Niger

6,992

0

-100.0%

9705000070

New Zealand

168,454

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Czech Republic

3,730

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Philippines

22,465

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Cameroon

9,022

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Senegal

3,207

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Mexico

19,380

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Peru

59,014

0

-100.0%

9705000070

New Caledonia

3,750

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Portugal

18,655

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Burundi

14,500

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Pakistan

25,228

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Afghanistan

5,699

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Fr Polynesia

2,500

0

-100.0%

9705000070

Montenegro

25,000

0

-100.0%

Total

37,378,536

45,647,923

22.1%

The numbers posted here do not document the broader category of
"collections and collectors' pieces of zoological, botanical,
mineralogical, anatomical, historical, archeological, paleontological,
ethnographic or numismatic interest" classified by HTS 9705. The statistics posted are only those covering HTS 9705's subcategory of archaeological, historical, and ethnological material under HTS 9705.00.0070. Note too that HTS 9705 excludes "antiques" over 100
years old (e.g., silverware and furniture), which are classified elsewhere by
HTS 9706.

Monday, March 17, 2014

Import controls must be implemented with all deliberate speed, particularly now that a potential request to protect endangered Egyptian artifacts has been announced publicly.

Cultural heritage watchers over the last few years have witnessed the destruction to cultural heritage that has been inflicted on archaeological sites, storehouses, museums, and places of worship in Egypt. The crisis has been severe, prompting the International Council of Museums in 2012 to issue its Emergency Red List of Egyptian Cultural Objects at Risk.

But the lack of comprehensive action to stem the looting and smuggling of cultural heritage has afforded heritage traffickers the advantage of a three year head start to move their ill-gotten gains to the United States. Calls by CHL in January 2011 and July 2013 for emergency import protections were not received with urgency.

Last week, however, Tom Mashberg of The New York Times reported that the State Department and the Egyptian Minister of State for Antiquities spoke about implementing American emergency import measures. By the terms of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), the State Department must receive a formal request from the Egyptian government for that process to officially begin. TheFederal Register has not yet reported such a formal request, although Mashberg writes that Egypt is looking "for fast action on the restrictions."

Now that the prospect of emergency restrictions on the importation of Egyptian artifacts appears real, traffickers are likely to increase shipments of heritage contraband to the U.S. before barriers are raised. And that is why emergency import measures must be implemented immediately.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

The Treasury Department and Customs and Border
Protection today issuedfinal
rulesin support of a five year extension of
the cultural property Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the U.S. and Honduras.

The import rules, which protect endangered cultural
heritage from Honduras, were finalized in response to the State
Department's conclusion that "conditions continue to warrant
the imposition of import restrictions on the archaeological materials from
Honduras...."

The renewed MoU contains added import protections covering threatened
ecclesiastical ethnological materialdating
from Honduras' Colonial Period. Sculpture, paintings, and metalwork such
as chalices and crucifixes are now objects subject to American import
controls.

A complete list outlining the full range of archaeological and
ethnological objects subject to import restrictions may be foundhere.

Voices
from the collecting and museum communities last yearexpressed
concern or outright oppositionto a renewed agreement that would have protected Colonial and Republican cultural
heritage objects. The Association of Art Museum Directors, for example, offered support for the Honduran MoU but cautioned that care should be taken to define exactly
what objects should be protected and what dates should be used. The final rules issued today appear to have responded to these concerns by specifying ecclesiastical ethnological goods dating from c.1502-1821 A.D.

The U.S. first entered into a bilateral agreement with Honduras in 2004
after the cultural patrimony found in that Central American nation was found to be in
jeopardy from pillage, particularly from archaeological site looting. The U.S. later renewed the MoU in 2009 for another five years, the time frame allowed by the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA), which gives
legal force to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of
Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership
of Cultural Property.

Cultural objects covered by the MoU's import rules may
legally pass through American borders when accompanied by either an export
permit or proof showing that they left Honduras prior to the adoption of the restrictions.
Prohibited cultural material may be detained, seized,
and forfeited by customs authorities as contraband, and smugglers could face criminal prosecution.

Importers would do well to remember that the
1973 Pre-Columbian Monumental or Architectural Sculpture or Murals Statute still applies, permitting import of the goods designated in the law so long as the importer produces a valid export certificate or offers proof that the imported heritage objects left Honduras before June 1, 1973.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

CHL has
said that the Presidential Task
Force on Wildlife Trafficking should serve as a model for a similar antiquities
trafficking initiative. That is because large-scale transnational organized
crimes (TOCs) like cultural heritage trafficking require highly coordinated and
powerful interdiction. But a recent presidential pronouncement based on the task force's work has ignited a growing firestorm of controversy that could impact the formation of future TOC task forces. Public hearings and consensus-building are urged.

The White House issued the National
Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking in February, a publication derived from the work done by the Task Force. The strategy adopts a near universal ban on the commercial
sale of elephant ivory objects, including old ivory once legitimately
purchased and legally imported. It
restricts all commercial exports except for antiques 100+ years old,
certain noncommercial objects, and items permitted under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). The ban specifically prohibits commercial imports of African
elephant ivory, including antiques. It halts the interstate and intrastate
trade of ivory (except antiques) "unless the seller can demonstrate an
item was lawfully imported prior to 1990 for African elephants and 1975 for
Asian elephants, or under an exemption document." The ban is hoped to to combat what the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) says is a global illegal ivory trade that "has more than doubled since 2007." DOI reports, "It is estimated that poachers, working with criminal syndicates, systematically killed as many as 35,000 elephants in 2012."

But the blanket ban has prompted Forbes
contributor Doug Bandow to remark,
"The Obama administration is preparing to
treat virtually every antique collector, dealer, and auctioneer in America—and
anyone else who happens to own a piece of ivory—as a criminal." Others have expressed similar views.

Proponents of the ban entirely disagree, saying that America needs stringent rules
because it has the second largest ivory marketplace in the world, a
statistic tendered by a comprehensive United Nations Environment Program report
published last year titledElephants
in the Dust. President and CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S., Wayne Pacelle, explains
the trade volume and makes a case for the ban in hisA Humane Nationblog:

But
the sad truth is that the U.S. is the second largest ivory marketplace after
China, partly because it’s legal to trade in “antique” ivory more than
100 years old, ivory imported to the U.S. before Asian and African elephants
received protection under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (1975 and 1990, respectively),
or non-elephant ivory such as mammoth ivory. Traffickers claim that ivory
from recently poached elephants is antique, and they dye it to make it look old
and forge documents to substantiate their claim... The truth is that there is no way for enforcement officers or
the public to distinguish old from new ivory, or which species worked ivory
comes from. It all adds up to a robust legal and illegal trade of ivory in the
U.S.

Besides the blanket ban, the White House's National
Strategy offers universally appealing steps to strengthen
law enforcement and to increase cooperation among individuals,
organizations, and governments to suppress elephant poaching and ivory
trafficking. It is only blanket ban on the trade of pre-existing elephant ivory
objects that prompts the controversy and the need for public discussion.

Personal
property issues likely to arise as a result of the moratorium on pre-existing elephant ivory goods include potential problems
for individuals, businesses, and museums. A few illustrations:

A Cold War Army veteran who served in the Horn of Africa and who
lawfully brought home ivory vases to the U.S. after purchasing then from a
local craftsman may find, upon his death, that the county probate court has denied the executor's ability to auction the items at an estate sale, thereby reducing
the anticipated value of the former soldier's estate.

A family who had their grand piano restored in 1992 with pre-ban ivory
keys may be prohibited from selling their $20,000 instrument unless they either can
produce decades-old paperwork that likely would have been in the hands of the
piano restorer (who may be retired or out of business now that 22 years have passed) or can retrofit the keyboard with plastic keys at a cost (assuming that a piano restorer would want to conduct this business in the wake of the new ban).

An American museum may be restricted from importing, accessioning, and
conserving a properly provenance hand-crafted Byzantine ivory triptych, once used for private religious
devotion in the 10th century.

An American furniture seller of French art deco tables
from the 1920’s through 1940’s who stores her inventory in Europe may suffer
business losses and breach existing contracts because she cannot ship her stocks
to the U.S.

A divorcing couple and their family court judge may find themselves hamstrung as
they attempt to tally marital assets that can no longer be considered “assets” because the couple's original wedding gifts of non-antique pre-ban jewelry, billiard balls, chess pieces, ivory-handled knives, and natsukes now have no resale value.

These and other issues are certain to surface, particularly because the proposed blanket ivory ban differs from what has been expected in past years under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) and the Convention on the
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

With regard to African elephant ivory, the existing rules in the U.S. have generally been that:

It is illegal to own, sell, or export crafted ivory
imported into the U.S. after 1989 and which was less than 100 years old when
the crafted ivory came across the American border.

It is illegal to own, sell, or export uncrafted ivory that
was imported into the U.S. after 1989. The age of the ivory does not matter.

It is legal to own, sell, or export crafted or
uncrafted ivory that was imported into the U.S. before 1989.

The rules for Asian elephant ivory have been, broadly speaking, that ivory cannot
be sold in interstate or international commerce, that permits are required for
import or for export, and that sales within the U.S. are allowed unless
restricted by CITES or by State law.

It is entirely fair to say that the announced rules changes suddenly sweeps
up innocent owners of old ivory in a dragnet, particularly owners of old African ivory items.

Despite the consequences to innocent owners, a rationale
for a total ban is given by the nonprofit Environmental Investigation
Agency on itsweb
site: Ivory "belong[s] on the
animal and nowhere else … Attempting to
undercut the black market with a ‘legal’ supply is a naïve and inappropriate
strategy for a market that does not have a finite demand and which is ever more
stimulated by new supplies."

But the coming weeks are expected to see an increase in opposition to
the ban, even from those who traditionally support strong measures
to counter TOC. Buoyed by arguments that collective punishment is being exacted on
innocent citizens and that there has been no opportunity for a public hearing, ban opponents will rest their core points on the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments' exhortations that that no person shall be "deprived of ...
property without due process of law."

That the blanket ban cuts the chaff of ivory black
marketeers by sacrificing the entire wheat field of individual property rights and commercial
trade is an argument that will likely be heard. In fact, opponents are sure to spotlight
the ban as an overly broad enforcement tactic, contending that the U.S.
would never place a sweeping freeze on banking transactions to halt money
laundering; would not propose to halt the sale of
all medications in order to eliminate the counterfeit prescriptions market; and would not
declare a moratorium on the sale of all movies to combat media piracy.

Public figures like Hillary
Rodham Clinton and Chelsea Clinton will, nevertheless, continue to endorse the blanket ban.
Writing for the Clinton Foundationblog,
they explain,

The global ban agreed in 1989 was
successful in stemming a previous killing spree. Over time, however, exceptions
have eviscerated the international ban and illegal ivory is now routinely
bought and sold under one or more loopholes, providing cover for illegal
traffickers. These need to be closed and sanctions imposed on countries that
continue to trade in ivory products.

Clamping down on poachers and smugglers is critical to preserving our planet's endangered elephants. But the National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking possesses shortcomings that urgently require public discussion. The current controversy
should not be permitted to diminish the need for a
national strategy to combat cultural heritage trafficking. The threats of
war, looting, smuggling, and vandalism to heritage remain prevalent, requiring
a firm and coordinated response. Ensuring that the wildlife strategy is subject to public debate, is properly formulated, and that it has broad public support will build enthusiasm for a
future heritage trafficking strategy. If the current National Strategy continues
to build controversy without consensus, however, other TOC task force proposals may never get off the
ground.

Tom
Mashberg broke the story inThe
New York Timeslast week about the seizure of a Roman sarcophagus lid by U.S. Homeland Security Investigations
(HSI) in New York. A review of the forfeiture complaint filed in the Eastern
District of New York reveals the facts and law supporting the government's
claim.

In
the case ofU.S. v. One
Ancient Roman Sarcophagus Lid with Sculpture of Reclining Woman, Assistant
U.S. Attorney Karen Orenstein argues that the lid (also known as the “in rem”) is stolen property, which was
illegally brought across America's borders "contrary to law."

To support its forfeiture claim, the government offers the tried and true customs statute of
19
U.S.C. § 1595a(c)(1)(A), which says, "Merchandise which is introduced or
attempted to be introduced into the United States contrary to law shall be ...
seized and forfeited if it is stolen, smuggled, or
clandestinely imported or introduced."

Attorney Orenstein offers the familiar arguments of the McClain/Schultz
doctrine, the National Stolen Property Act at18 U.S.C. § 2314,
and Italy's cultural patrimony laws from1909and1939to weave the argument that the lid is
stolen property from Italy unlawfully imported into the U.S. It therefore must be returned to Italy.

The alleged
facts listed by the prosecution in support of the forfeiture complaint include
the following

the lid was shipped from Italy to Switzerland in 1981;

a Manhattan gallery displayed the $4 million lid in May 2013;

the
gallery later shipped the lid to a storage unit in Long Island City, NY on October
29, 2013;

HSI
agents photographed the lid in its crate at the storage facility on February
20, 2014 and then presented the photos to the Italian Carabinieri's Division for the Protection of Cultural
Heritage, the "TPC";

the TPCidentifiedthe lid ascultural property obtained illegally
by GianfrancoBecchina, who was
convicted in an Italian court of antiquities crimes in February 2011.

The prosecution's Exhibit B showing the lid in two parts

The
forfeiture complaint recites in more detail how the lid came to be in the hands of GianfrancoBecchina and his Basel, Switzerland gallery called Palladion Antike Kunst:

The Becchina
archive contains images of the Defendant in rem prior to its restoration and documents relating to the piece,
including:

a. A German article about
the Defendant in rem, described as a Roman
kline statue of a sleeping woman, which included photographs matching the Defendant
in rem, including one full-length photograph.See Exhibit B.
The article appeared in a catalog that coincided
with an exhibition at the Historical Museum of Bern from November 6, 1982 until
February 6, 1983. In the photographs, the Defendant in rem appears to be in two pieces and other damage is visible.

b. …

c. A receipt dated August
8, 1981 showing that Palladion purchased
the Defendant in rem, describe as a marble Roman
sarcophagus in two pieces from Carlo Ciochetti in Rome. Attached to the receipt was a Swiss customs form
dated August 14, 1981 bearing the destination "Gianfranco Becchina, Palladion" in Basel, Switzerland.

d. A receipt dated September
15, 1981 showing that Palladion sold the Defendant in rem, described as a marble kline sculpture of a girl, to George
Ortiz. Attached to the receipt was a copy of the full-length photograph of the
Defendant in rem in Exhibit B.

No crime
has been charged in this case. The government, at this time, only seeks civil forfeiture of
the statue in order to repatriate it to Italy.

2015 ABA Journal Blawg 100 Honoree

2014 ABA Journal Blawg 100 Honoree

2014 Daniel Webster International Lawyer of the Year award given to Rick St. Hilaire

"Rick St. Hilaire, who has become an authority on cultural heritage law, received the International Law Section’s 2014 Daniel Webster International Lawyer of the Year award at an Oct. 30 reception in Manchester, hosted by Sheehan Phinney Bass + Green." - NH Bar News, November 19, 2014

LexisNexis Top 25 Blogs

Top International Law Blogs

Rick St. Hilaire is among those featured in Josh Knelman's book, Hot Art

DISCLAIMER: This blog is for general information only. The information provided on this site should not be construed as legal advice, nor does it form an attorney-client relationship with the reader. While accuracy is strived for, the information presented here may not contain the most current legal developments. It is not guaranteed to be current, correct, or complete. No warranty, either express or implied, is given by this site or its contents. There may be information presented that links to outside sources. These links are not intended to be an endorsement of these sites, their information, or their opinions. Comments or opinions made by others are their own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CHL or its author(s). This site is intended for informational purposes and is not attorney advertising. If you send an email to Cultural Heritage Lawyer, it will not form an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as confidential or privileged. You should not send confidential communications through this web site or via email.